T.  I  O.I  <^' 00 

PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


wn/e^ /?/  O^rvs.  0\\>.\'r\or. 


/<f^<f^i 


BV  760.2  .M66  1900 
Monfort,  F.  C.  1844- 
Ecclesiastical  discipline 


helf.. 


ECCLESIASTICAL 

DISCIPLINE 


Its  Necessity,  purpose  arid  iVlett\ods 

as  Slr^owri  ir\  tl^e  Presbyteriari 

Book  of  Disciplir\e. 


REY.  F,  C.  MONFORT,  D.D. 


CINCINNATI,  OHIO 
1900. 


}y  the  same  Author: 

Sermons  for  Silent  Sabbaths. 
Socialism  and  City  Evangelization. 
The  Law  of  Appeals. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE. 


NECESSITY    OF    DISCIPLINE. 

Discipline  is  as  necessary  in  the  Church 
as  in  an  army.  An  undisciplined  army  is 
a  mob.  An  undisciplined  Church  may  ac- 
complish some  good,  but  is  comparatively 
inefficient. 

What  is  discipline?  It  is  "education, 
"drill,"  "training  to  act  in  accordance  with 
rules,"  "systematic  training  or  subjection 
to  authority,"  "training  as  a  disciple  or 
follower."  Christ  used  the  word  in  all 
these  senses  combined  when  he  directed  his 
disciples  to  go  "into  all  the  world  and 
disciple  all  nations." 

In  modern  ecclesiastical  parlance  the 
word  is  used  in  a  restricted  sense,  to  mean 
not  the  whole  work  of  the  Church  in 
discipling  or  disciplining  men,  but  only  its 
dealing  with  those  who  are  refractory  or 
disobedient.  "Discipline"  is  defined  to  be 
"the  exercise  of  that  authority  and  the  ap- 
plication of  that  system  of  laws  which  the 
(3) 


Ecclesiastical  D iscipline. 


Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed  in  his 
Church,  embracing  the  care  and  control 
maintained  hy  the  Church  over  its  mem- 
bers, officers  and  judicatories." 

In  this  restricted  sense  discipline  is  es- 
sential to  the  success  of  the  Church  in  ac- 
complishing its  mission.  It  is  as  neces- 
sary for  soldiers  to  be  under  and  submit  to 
a|ithority  as  it  is  to  know  the  manual  of 
ai-ms.  It  is  necessary  for  the  Church  not 
only  to  know  morality  and  sound  doctrine, 
but  to  maintain  them,  though  this  may  in- 
volve severe  dealing  with  those  who  teach 
untruth  or  practice  immorality. 


PURPOSE    OP   DISCIPLINE. 

"The  ends  of  Church  discipline  are  the 
maintenance  of  the  truth,  the  vindication 
of  the  authority  and  honor  of  Christ,  the 
removal  of  offenses,  the  promotion  of  the 
purity  and  edification  of  the  Church,  and 
the  spiritual  good  of  offenders."  There  are 
points  of  resemblance  to  be  noted  and 
sharp  distinctions  to  be  drawn  between 
Church  discipline  and  the  administration 
of  law  by  the  State.  Both  seek  truth  and 
justice.  Both  are  the  exercise  of  authority 
and  for  the  removal  of  offenses.  The  State, 
however,  in  certain  cases  seeks  to  punish 
men  for  their  offenses.  Church  discipline 
seeks  the  good  of  the  offenders  themselves, 
as  well  as  the  promotion  of  purity  and 
truth. 

Church  censures  are  not  primarily  in- 
flicted as  punishment.  They  may  cause 
pain,  as  some  medical  treatment  does,  but 
they  are  not  penal.  Admonition  and  re- 
buke are  formal  expressions  of  the  Church's 
belief  that  certain  doctrines  or  practices 
are  wrong.  The  suspension  of  a  man  from 
(5) 


Ecclesiastical  D  iscipline. 


the  ministry  for  false  teaching  is  a  repudia- 
tion by  the  Church  of  his  doctrine,  and  a 
declaration  that  it  will  not  allow  it  to  be 
taught  in  its  name.  This  end  is  attained 
in  some  Churches  by  the  "withdrawal  of 
fellowship."  Each  denomination  has,  and 
must  have,  a  way  of  freeing  itself  from  re- 
sponsibility for  the  teaching  of  men  who 
are  immoral  or  deny  its  doctrines.  Some 
determine  their  action  in  meetings  of  the 
local  Church.  In  some  power  is  in  the 
hands  of  a  Bishop.  In  others  there  are 
judicatories  which  act  under  rules  securing 
full  and  fair  consideration  of  every  case. 
All  seek  the  maintenance  of  their  doctrines 
and  of  morality,  and  the  good  of  offenders. 
All  denominations  have  their  creeds  and 
standards  of  morality  and  codes  of  pro- 
cedure, written  or  unwritten.  No  society 
can  live  and  do  its  work  without  them.  It 
is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  these 
are  simply  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures 
and  approved  methods  of  administering 
justice.  The  principle  is  recognized  that 
all  councils  may  err,  and  that  all  standards 
are  subordinate  to  the  one  supreme  stan- 


Purpose  of  Discipline. 


dard  of  God's  Word.  The  criticism,  com- 
mon in  cases  of  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
that  men  are  tried  not  by  the  Scriptures, 
but  by  human  standards,  is  rarely,  if  ever, 
justified. 

The  true  ends  of  discipline  are  usually 
understood  by  those  who  exercise  it,  but  are 
not  always  clear  to  those  who  discuss  par- 
ticular cases  in  the  public  prints.  Phrase- 
ology is  borrowed  from  times  and  lands 
in  which  Church  and  State  were  united, 
and  in  which  civil  penalties  were  inflicted 
for  ecclesiastical  offenses.  Judicial  pro- 
ceedings are  likened  to  the  inquisition,  and 
men  charged  with  false  teaching  are  de- 
scribed as  martyrs  at  the  stake  or  on  the 
rack.  Of  course  this  is  untrue  and  mis- 
leading. No  Church  court  can  burn  a  man 
or  ixiprison  him,  or  deprive  him  of  any 
civil  right.  It  can  do  no  more  than  disfel- 
lowship  him.  Nevertheless,  such  utter- 
ances are  heard  and  repeated,  and  leave  a 
false  impression  on  the  public  mind,  and 
in  some  case  influence  judicatories  to  len- 
iency or  undue  severity. 

It  becomes  every  man  charged  with  ec- 


Ecclesiastical  D iscipline. 


clesiastical  responsibility  to  familiarize 
himself  with  his  position  and  his  duties, 
to  know  the  doctrines  and  requirements  of 
God's  Word,  and  the  purposes  of  discip- 
line, and  to  cultivate  the  spirit  of  charity, 
fairness  and  loyalty  to  truth. 


TRIALS  TO  BE  AVOIDED  IF  POSSIBLE. 

"Actual  process"  or  formal  trial  is  not 
the  whole  daty  of  the  Church  in  dealing 
with  the  refractory  and  disobedient.  The 
first  thing  to  be  determined  by  a  judicatory 
when  its  attention  is  called  to  an  alleged 
offense  is  whether  a  trial  can  be  avoided. 
If  the  evil  can  be  overcome,  and  the  ends  of 
discipline  attained  in  any  other  way,  this 
is  to  be  done.  No  formal  trial  is  to  be 
initiated  unless  it  is  found  to  be  "neces- 
sary for  the  ends  of  discipline"  which  are 
"the  maintenance  of  the  truth,  the  vindica- 
tion of  the  authority  and  honor  of  Christ, 
the  removal  of  offenses,  the  promotion  of 
the  purity  and  edification  of  the  Church  and 
the  spiritual  good  of  offenders." 

The  language  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
on  this  point  is  explicit.  The  prosecution 
of  an  offender  is  not  to  be  entered  upon 
hastily.  Judicatories,  not  only  during  trials, 
but  in  all  the  preliminary  stages,  should 
consider  "all  the  circumstances  which  may 
give  a  different  character  to  conduct."  It 
is  also  intimated  that  similar  cases  may 
(9) 


10  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 


require  "different  action  at  different 
times,"  and  that  there  may  be  cases  in 
which,  because  of  difficulties  which  make 
conviction  doubtful,  "it  is  better  to  wait  un- 
til God  gives  further  light." 

Even  in  cases  of  manifest  error  it  is  not 
always  best  to  initiate  judicial  process.  A 
minister  may  be  disturbed  as  to  certain 
doctrines  and  yet  go  on  preaching  the  gos- 
pel as  God  gives  him  light.  His  errors  may 
be  known  to  his  brethren,  who  strive  to 
convince  him  of  the  truth,  but  take  no  ju- 
dicial steps.  Much  depends  on  the  serious- 
ness of  the  errors  and  the  diligence  with 
which  they  are  propagated.  There  have 
been  cases  in  which  ministers  were  prop- 
erly prosecuted  and  deposed  for  diligently 
sowing  seeds  of  error,  while  other  men, 
who  sympathized  with  them  in  their  views 
but  made  no  effort  to  disturb  the  Church, 
were  just  as  properly  left  in  peace. 

In  cases  of  prosecution  by  an  individual 
for  "personal  injury"  the  prosecutor  must 
use  efforts  as  set  forth  in  Matt,  xviii.  15-17 
before  filing  charges.  And  in  every  case 
efforts  must  be  made  to  avoid  the  necessity 


Trials  to  he  Avoided.  11 

of  actual  trial.  Moreover,  the  judicatory 
must  be  careful  in  considering  charges  from 
persons  known  to  be  litigious,  rash  or  high- 
ly imprudent.  It  is  one  of  the  strong  points 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline  that  the  begin- 
ning of  judicial  process  is  hedged  about 
with  difficulties.  This  is  noticeable  not  only 
in  the  quotations  given  above,  but  in  the 
definition  of  an  offense,  which  is  "anything 
in  the  doctrine,  principles  or  practice  of  a 
church  member,  officer  or  judicatory  which 
is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  or  which, 
if  it  be  not  in  its  own  nature  sinful,  may 
tempt  others  to  sin  or  mar  their  spiritual 
edification."  This  definition  at  the  very  be- 
ginning of  the  Presbyterian  code  of  pro- 
cedure recognizes  the  Word  of  God  as  the 
fundamental  law.  The  Confession,  Cate- 
chism, Form  of  Government  and  Book  of 
Discipline  are  subordinate  standards.  We 
believe  that  they  contain  the  system  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  "Nothing  shall, 
therefore,  be  the  object  of  judicial  process 
v/hich  can  not  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  the  regulation 
and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  there- 


12  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

on,  nor  anything  which  does  not  involve 
those  evils  which  discipline  is  intended  to 
prevent." 

Two  provisions  of  our  law  furnish  addi- 
tional illustrations  of  the  purpose  of  its 
framers  to  prevent  unnecessary  judicial  ac- 
tion. Members  of  judicatories,  in  taking 
up  cases,  must  be  solemnly  enjoined  by  the 
Moderator  "to  recollect  and  regard  their 
high  character  as  judges  of  a  court  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  while  one  who  appears  as  an  in- 
dividual prosecutor  must  be  warned  "that 
if  he  fail  to  show  probable  cause  for 
charges,  he  must  himself  be  censured  as  a 
slanderer  of  the  brethren." 


OBLIGATIONS   OF   OFFENDERS. 

The  obligation  to  avoid  needless  trials 
rests  not  only  upon  judicatories,  but  also 
upon  individuals,  as  well  upon  those  ag- 
grieved as  upon  those  who  give  offense. 
Special  provision  is  made  (Sec.  12)  where- 
by the  former  may  ask  investigation,  which 
shall  be  granted,  and  which  "may  conclude 
the  matter."  It  does  not  necessarily  con- 
clude it,  though  in  many  cases  it  does  so 
The  result  of  such  investigation  has  not  the 
force  of  a  judicial  finding,  but  it  has 
weight  and  is  to  be  respected. 

It  is  also  possible,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Form  of  Government  (xii.  5)  for  one 
not  personally  injured  or  aggrieved  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Church  courts,  or  for  a 
lower  court  to  call  the  attention  of  a  higher 
court,  to  any  "error  in  doctrine  or  immoral- 
ity in  practice."  And  for  the  court  so 
called  upon  to  reprove,  warn,  bear  testi- 
mony, or  recommend  as  it  may  deem  best. 
Such  reproof,  recommendation,  etc.,  while 
not  having  the  force  of  a  judicial  finding, 
is  to  be  regarded  by  all  concerned. 
(13) 


14  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

It  is  worth,  noting  just  here  that  the 
"Plan  of  Union"  of  the  Synods  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  in  1758,  the  plan  by  which 
American  Presbyterianism  became  one  or- 
ganization, after  setting  forth  the  adher- 
ence of  the  united  body  to  the  Confes- 
sion, Catechisms,  Plan  of  Worship,  Gov- 
ernment and  Discipline,  etc.,  has  these 
words:  "When  any  matter  is  determined 
by  a  major  vote,  every  member  shall  either 
actively  concur  in  or  passively  submit  to 
such  determination;  or  if  his  conscience 
permit  him  to  do  neither,  he  shall,  after 
sufficient  liberty  modestly  to  reason  and 
remonstrate,  peaceably  withdraw  from  our 
communion  without  attempting  to  make 
any  schism."  It  is  added  that  this  extends 
only  to  matters  "deemed  indispensable." 
Responsibility  for  preventing  discord,  trials 
and  schism  was  thus  placed  upon  those  who 
hold  views  judged  by  the  Church  to  be 
contrary  to  our  Standards.  The  Form  of 
Government,  as  already  noted,  provides  a 
way  in  which  the  judgment  of  the  Church 
as  to  indispensable  doctrine  is  to  be  de- 
clared.     It   was   in   accordance   with   this 


OWigat'wus  of  Offenders.  15 

provision  that  Dr.  McGiffert's  doctrines 
were  pronounced  against  by  two  Assem- 
blies, and  that  he  was  counseled  to  with- 
draw from  our  ministry. 

Even  without  the  advice  of  the  Church 
courts  the  way  is  open  for  a  minister  in 
good  standing,  who  does  not  believe  and 
feels  that  he  can  not  preach  the  system 
of  doctrine  in  the  Confession,  to  withdraw 
peaceably  and  with  honor.  He  may  become 
independent  or  unite  with  some  other  de- 
nomination not  deemed  heretical,  and  no- 
tify his  Presbytery  of  the  fact.  The  Pres- 
bytery receiving  such  notice  can  "take  no 
other  action  than  to  record  the  fact  and 
order  his  name  to  be  erased  from  the  roll" 
(Section  53).  This  was  the  proceeding  in 
the  case  of  Dr.  N.  D.  Hillis.  His  handling 
of  the  Confession  drew  upon  him  severe 
criticism,  whereupon  he  announced  his  in- 
dependence, and  Presbytery  erased  his 
name  from  the  roll.  It  was  much  better, 
both  for  him  and  for  the  Church,  than  if 
he  had  forced  the  Church  to  put  him  on 
trial. 


16  Ecolesiastical  Discipline. 

Church  judicatories  usually  recognize  it 
as  a  settled  principle  that  actual  process 
is  to  be  avoided  where  this  is  possible. 
Many,  however,  who  discuss  particular 
cases  in  the  public  prints  do  not  recognize 
it,  and  do  not  know  the  efforts  put  forth  to 
secure  the  settlement  of  difficulties  and  the 
removal  of  offense  by  quiet  and  peaceable 
procedure.  Odium  is  frequently  cast  upon 
judicatories  and  all  connected  with  cases  of 
discipline.  Men  are  blamed  for  exercising 
the  caution  and  patience  which  the  law  re- 
quires, while  others  are  equally  blamed  for 
failure  to  exercise  caution  and  patience 
which  they  have  really  exercised. 

In  a  later  chapter  we  shall  show  that 
while  our  system  is  wise,  just  and  efficient, 
in  its  provisions  for  avoiding  unnecessary 
trials,  it  is  equally  wise,  just  and  efficient 
in  its  provisions  for  defendng  morality  and 
sound  doctrine  by  judicial  trials  when 
necessary,  and  that  while  it  is  the  duty  of 
judicatories  to  be  patient  with  those  who 
may  be  won  by  patience  and  gentle  where 
gentleness  is  effectual,  it  is  also  their  duty. 


Ohlir/ations  of  Offenders.  17 

where  mild  methods  fail,  to  maintain  truth 
and  right,  even  by  calling  offenders  to  the 
bar  and  by  dealing  with  them  justly  and 
firmly. 


BY   WAY   OF   ILLUSTRATION. 

The  caution  and  patience  actually  ex- 
ercised by  judicatories  in  the  effort  to  avoid 
trials  are  abundantly  illustrated  by  the  his- 
tory of  recent  cases  which  have  disturbed 
the  Church.  New  York  Presbytery  did  not 
proceed  to  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  until  it 
had  exhausted  every  possible  effort  to  avoid 
it.  Indeed,  looking  back  over  the  period, 
the  conviction  is  forced  that  the  Presbytery 
erred  on  the  side  of  too  grent  patience  and 
delay.  It  was  not  until  the  controversy 
had  stirred  the  whole  Church  that  process 
was  begun,  and  even  after  it  was  begun  a 
further  delay  was  had  through  the  adop- 
tion, by  a  large  majority,  of  a  motion  to 
dismiss  the  case.  The  history  was  re- 
peated in  the  case  of  Prof.  McGiffert.  No 
steps  were  taken  until  the  matter  had  agi- 
tated the  whole  Church,  and  until  Dr.  Mc- 
Giffert's  views  had  been  twice  condemned 
by  the  General  Assembly;  the  second  time 
with  an  injunction  upon  all  sessions  and 
Presbyteries  to  protect  and  defend  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  which  he  opposed, 
(18) 


By  Way  of  lUustratiou.  19 

and  with  a  special  reference  of  his  case  to 
his  own  Presbytery.  Even  after  this  the 
Presbytery  hesitated  to  begin  process,  and 
but  for  the  action  of  an  individual  prose- 
cutor it  would  be  necessary  for  the  As- 
sembly to  repeat  its  injunction  in  stronger 
terms.  The  Presbytery's  action  in  subse- 
quently dismissing  the  case  is  exactly  in 
line  with  that  taken  in  the  Briggs  case,  the 
only  difference  being  that  the  present  ma- 
jority is  smaller  than  that  in  the  former 
case,  and  illustrates  a  fact  patent  to  all 
students  of  ecclesiastical  process,  viz.:  That 
the  danger  of  hasty  judicial  action  is  slight, 
there  being  indeed  greater  danger  that  cau- 
tion, the  desire  to  avoid  controversy,  the 
influence  of  local  surroundings  and  per- 
sonal sympathy,  will  influence  even  good 
men  to  tolerate  evil  and  neglect  the  proper 
exercise  of  discipline. 

It  sometimes  happens  that  a  judicatory 
is  constrained  to  discipline  one  who  has 
popular  gifts  or  strong  social  or  institu- 
tional connections,  and  whose  conviction 
may  cause  heart  burnings  and  possible  se- 
rious injury  to  local  interests.     In  such  a 


20  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

case  there  is  more  danger  of  laxity  thar. 
of  severity.  Immediate  dangers  are  magni- 
fied, and  the  interests  of  truth  and  of  the 
whole  Church  are  underestimated.  This 
was  true  in  the  Briggs  case.  It  was 
feared  and  asserted  that  a  conviction  would 
result  in  disruption,  or  at  least  in  a  large 
secession  from  the  Church.  This  fear  was 
not  justified  by  results.  There  was  some 
secession,  more  perhaps  than  there  would 
have  been  had  the  Presbytery  dealt  prompt- 
ly with  the  case,  but  nothing  in  comparison 
to  what  had  been  predicted.  The  same  dif- 
ficulties were  experienced  and  the  same  pre- 
dictions heard  in  connection  with  the  Mc- 
Giffert  case.  These  did  not  fail  to  influence 
members  of  the  Presbytery.  This  was 
manifest  in  the  action  in  which  it  was  de- 
clared that  the  teachings  of  Dr.  McGiffert 
are  "erroneous  and  seriously  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  facts  of  Holy  Scripture,"  but 
that  in  view  of  "grave  injury"  likely  to  re- 
sult from  a  trial  the  matter  be  dropped.  It 
was  manifest  again  in  the  action  dismissing 
the  charges  preferred  against  Dr.  McGiffert 
by  Dr.  Birch,  not  because  the  charges  and 


By  ^Y(IU  of  IJlustrdtidii.  21 

specifications  are  insufficient  "in  form  and 
legal  effect,"  nor  on  any  other  ground  recog- 
nized in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  but  for  the 
same  reason  given  in  the  previous  action 
viz.,  fear  of  possible  injury. 

These  cases  illustrate  not  only  the  dif- 
ficulty incident  to  trial  in  courts  of  primarj; 
jurisdiction,  but  the  excellence  of  our  sys- 
tem in  its  suctession  of  courts,  and  in  the 
rules  by  which  a  case  may  be  fallen  by  ap- 
peal from  the  lower  to  the  higher  court, 
and  directly  or  eventually  to  the  Assembly. 
The  advantage  of  this  is  not  only  in  the 
superior  wisdom  of  the  larger  body,  but  in 
its  high  position,  above  the  fogs  of  local 
strife,  and  beyond  the  sounds  of  social  and 
institutional  contentions,  a  position  from 
which  it  scans  the  whole  field  of  the 
Church,  its  purpose,  doctrines,  agencies  and 
obligations,  and  from  which  it  can  render 
its  decision,  neither  overestimating  local 
difficulties  nor  underestimating  its  whole 
duty  to  God. 


THE  EXERCISE  OF  DISCIPLINE  A  DUTY 

Having  in  a  previous  cliapter  emphasized 
the  importance  of  patience  in  the  treat- 
ment of  offenders  against  morality  and 
sound  doctrine,  and  of  caution  in  the  ini- 
tiation of  judicial  process,  it  is  necessary 
to  emphasize  also  the  importance  of  such 
process  where  other  means  fail  to  secure 
the  ends  of  discipline. 

This  will  be  apparent  to  any  who  con- 
sider the  purpose  and  work  of  the  Church. 
God  has  committed  to  the  Cnurch  the  min- 
istry of  reconciliation.  He  has  given  it  the 
Scriptures,  in  which  only  is  to  be  found 
the  way  of  salvation.  He  has  directed  it 
to  go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  has  given  it 
power  to  establish  churches  and  ordain 
ministers  and  administer  ordinances.  We 
believe  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
rightly  interprets  his  Word  and  is  properly 
furnished  for  carrying  out  his  work.  We 
believe  this,  not  in  the  spirit  of  hostility 
toward  those  who  differ  from  us  in  doc- 
trine or  polity,  but  still  firmly  and  cou- 
(22) 


E.r('icif>-('  of  Dif'cipliiic  a  Diifij.  23 

scientiously.  The  Presbyterian  Church  is 
grounded  "upon  the  foundation  of  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  be- 
ing the  chief  Corner-stone." 

Believing  this,  the  Church  has  its  system 
of  doctrine  and  laws,  which  it  holds  not 
as  a  philosophy  of  men,  but  as  a  compact 
statement  of  the  truth  contained  in  the 
Word  of  God.  It  believes  that  the  world 
can  best  be  reached  and  brought  under  the 
power  of  the  Gospel  by  the  preaching  of 
the  whole  counsel  of  God.  To  this  end  it 
ordains  men  to  the  ministry,  examining 
them  as  to  their  piety  and  doctrine,  as 
well  as  scholarship.  It  can  do  its  work 
effectively  only  by  maintaining  a  high 
standard  of  doctrine  and  conduct.  It  must 
not  only  guard  the  entrance  to  the  min- 
istry, but  must  be  watchful  of  those  who 
are  already  in  it,  and  where  immorality 
or  unsoundness  appears  it  must  not  shrink 
even  from  judicial  process,  if  such  process 
\z  the  only  relief. 

There  are  some  who,  while  recognizing 
the  necessity  of  judicial  trials  in  cases  of 
immorality,  oppose  all  trials  for  unsounc|- 


24  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 


ness  in  doctrine  on  the  ground  that  such 
trials  beget  public  discord,  create  scandal 
and  work  grave  injury,  and  that  the  Church 
can  sufficiently  protect  itself  by  a  con- 
sistent testimony  against  errors  as  they 
arise.  The  acknowledged  insufficiency  of 
this  method  in  cases  of  immorality  will 
illustrate  its  insufficiency  in  cases  of  un- 
soundness. If  a  minister  is  known  to  be 
guilty  of  dishonesty  or  licentiousness,  no 
amount  of  testimony  against  these  sins  will 
protect  the  Church  so  long  as  he  is  re- 
tained on  its  roll  as  a  minister  in  good 
standing.  The  enemies  of  the  Church  will 
say:  This  doctrine  of  purity  and  honesty 
is  what  j''0u  affirm,  but  this  man's  life  is 
your  real  testimony.  The  only  effective 
testimony  in  cases  of  gross  and  well  proven 
immorality  is  in  dealing  with  the  offender. 
Sc  in  cases  of  unsoundness.  If  a  minister 
is  known  to  deny  the  deity  of  Christ,  or 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  or  any 
other  doctrine  fundamental  to  our  system., 
the  testimony  of  the  Church  concerning 
such  doctrines  is  discounted  and,  in  large 
degree,    nullified,    if   the   man   remains   in 


E.xercise  of  Discipline  a  Duty.         25 


good  standing  and,  acting  under  the 
Church's  authority,  is  allowed  to  continue 
to  teach  them.  Moreover,  what  one  may 
teach,  others  may  teach.  False  doctrine  may 
spread  and  gain  a  hold,  influencing  many 
who  are  inclined  to  novelty,  or  who  lack 
in  knowledge  or  judgment.  As  a  result, 
controversies  arise  and  sharp  discussions 
engage  the  thought  of  the  Church,  turning 
it  from  its  work  of  evangelizing  the  un- 
converted. It  is  sometimes  claimed  that 
trials  for  heresy  do  this,  but  the  disturb- 
ances and  evil  results  would  be  greater  and 
more  prolonged  under  a  system  which  lim- 
ited the  Church  to  the  expression  of  its 
opinion,  allowing  men  to  antagonize  it  on 
ersential  doctrines  from  its  own  pulpits. 
If  the  Church  is  to  accomplish  the  work 
to  which  it  is  pledged,  it  must  have,  and, 
as  necessity  arises,  exercise  the  power  to 
free  itself  from  responsibility  for  those  who 
antagonize  its  fundamental  doctrines. 

It  is  urged  by  some  as  a  reason  why 
there  should  be  no  heresy  trials  that  the 
Church  maintains    the    "right    of    private 


20  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

judgment,"  as  it  certainly  does.  Just  here, 
however,  is  an  important  distinction.  A 
minister  may  have  the  right  of  private 
judgment  without  having  the  right  to  teach 
in  the  name  of  the  Church.  There  is  a 
right  of  united  denominational  judgment, 
which  belongs  to  the  Church,  and  which 
is  expressed  in  its  standards.  When  the 
private  judgment  of  an  individual  differs 
from  this  so  radically  that  his  teachings 
produce  contention  and  strife,  and  hinder 
the  Church  from  the  accomplishment  of 
its  work,  he  should  withdraw,  teaching 
upon  his  own  responsibility  or  seeking  a 
denomination  in  harmony  with  his  doc- 
trines. No  violence  would  thus  be  done 
to  his  right  of  private  judgment,  and  the 
Church  would  be  free  to  go  on  with  its 
work.  If  he  does  not  withdraw,  the  Church 
should  have,  as  it  has  in  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, a  safe,  just  and  effective  way  of 
freeing  itself  from  all  responsibility  for 
his  errors. 

Discipline   either   for   immorality   or   un- 
sound teaching  should  only  be  exercised  in 


Exercise  of  Discipline  a  Duty.         27 


cases  of  necessity;  but  in  such  cases  its 
exercise  is  as  important  and  as  much  a 
duty  as  the  exercise  of  any  other  power 
committed  to  the  Church. 


SAFEGUARDS    OF    DISCIPLINE. 

The  same  wise  caution  whicli  led  the 
framers  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  to  guard 
against  unnecessary  prosecutions,  led  them 
also  to  provide  that  where  judicial  process 
is  necessary  the  issues  must  be  plainly 
drawn,  the  well  defined  rights  of  con- 
tendants  respected,  and  sufficient  time  ta- 
ken to  determine  the  questions  involved. 

In  every  judicial  case  there  must  be  two 
parties,  the  accused  and  the  accuser.  The 
latter  may  be  an  individual  who  personally 
assumes  the  responsibility  of  prosecution, 
or  the  Church,  which,  through  one  of  its 
judicatories,  initiates  process  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  committee  to  act  in  its 
name.  In  either  case  the  rights  of  the  ac- 
cuser, or  prosecutor,  are  "to  conduct  the 
prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  and  in  what- 
ever judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  be 
reached."  The  position  of  prosecutor  is 
one  of  grave  responsibility,  and  should  not 
be  assumed  or  accepted  except  under  the 
conviction  that  it  is  the  call  of  God.  Once 
accepted,  it  requires  wisdom,  patience  and 
(28) 


Safeguards  of  Discipline.  29 


charity,   as   well   as   prayerful    dependence 
upon  the  wisdom  which  cometh  from  above. 

The  prosecutor  must  expect  and  be  un- 
moved by  harsh  criticism;  he  may  be 
called  a  persecutor  and  inquisitor.  He  must 
restrain  the  natural  impulse  to  meet  bitter- 
ness with  bitterness,  as  well  as  the  natural 
desire  for  success.  His  object  must  be  not 
victory,  but  right.  Where  he  is  sure  that 
immorality  or  unsound  doctrine  threatens 
the  purity  of  the  Church,  and  that  victory 
and  right  are  identical,  he  must  push  the 
case  with  vigor  and  by  every  justifiable 
means.  The  question,  whether  being  de- 
feated in  one  judicatory,  he  will  appeal  to 
another,  and  eventually  to  the  highest,  is 
one  of  duty,  to  be  settled  not  according 
to  popular  clamor,  but  conscientiously  and 
in  the   fear   of  God. 

The  rights  of  the  accused  party  are  very 
fully  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Discipline. 
He  is  entitled  to  trial,  not  by  a  court  com- 
posed of  strangers,  but  by  h'.3  own  breth- 
ren. (Section  18.)  If  a  minister,  his  own 
Presbytery,  and  if  an  elder  or  private  mem- 
ber, his  own  Session  is  the  court  of  original 


30  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

jurisdicUon.  Here,  however,  as  in  all  parts 
of  our  system,  the  interests  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  of  the  Church  are  equally  guard- 
ed. Where  the  Session  or  Presbytery  fails 
to  do  its  duty,  the  higher  judicatories  may 
direct  it,  and  in  case  of  refusal  or  neg- 
lect to  obey,  may  themselves  institute  pro- 
cess. 

The  Book  is  built  upon  the  theory  that 
an  accused  person  is  innocent  until  proven 
guilty,  and  that  every  opportunity  must 
be  given  him  to  prove  his  innocence.  To 
this  end  the  charges  must  be  definite,  and 
the  specification  must,  as  far  as  possible, 
give  time,  place,  circumstances  and  names 
of  witnesses  cited  to  sustain  them.  More- 
over, he  is  entitled  to  due  notice  and  time 
for  the  preparation  of  his  defense. 

The  deliberate  methods  of  Presbyterian 
discipline  are  an  argument  in  its  favor.  Men 
can  not  be  condemned  hastily  or  without 
defense.  In  this  it  differs  from  the  process 
common  in  some  other  denominations, 
where  members  or  ministers  may  be  tried 
and  disfellowshiped  without  notice,  simply 
by  a  majority  in  a  meeting  of  the  congre- 


Safeguards  of  Discipline.  31 

gation,  where  perhaps  prejudice  or  passion 
runs  high. 

The  Book  provides  (Section  19)  that 
when  a  judicatory  enters  upon  the  consid- 
eration of  an  alleged  offense,  the  charges 
and  specifications  shall  be  read,  and  noth- 
ing more  shall  be  done  at  that  meeting, 
unless  by  consent  of  parties,  than  to  fur- 
nish the  accused  with  a  copy  of  the  charges, 
specifications  and  names  of  witnesses,  and 
to  cite  all  concerned  to  appear  at  a  meet- 
ing, to  be  held  not  less  than  ten  days  after 
the  time  of  the  citations.  The  object  of 
this  is  to  secure  to  every  person  accused  of 
wrong-doing  the  opportunity  to  prepare  his 
defense  and  to  be  fully  heard.  No  advan- 
tage can  be  taken  of  him.  If  he  is  not  fa- 
miliar with  Church  law,  or  for  any  reason 
is  unable  to  conduct  his  defense,  he  may, 
under  Section  26,  select  any  member  of  the 
judicatory  to  act  as  his  counsel.  If  he 
lefuses  or  fails  to  answer  a  citation,  he 
must  be  cited  again,  having  additional  time 
before  the  judicatory  can  take  any  action 
in  his  case. 

The  Book  of  Discipline  is  sometimes  crit- 


82  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

icised  as  too  complicated  and  technical,  but 
the  criticism  is  unwarranted.  All  its  pro- 
visions are  for  the  furtherance  of  justice 
and  for  the  protection  of  the  innocent. 
Moreover,  it  is  remarkably  simple  to  those 
who  take  the  trouble  to  study  it.  Where 
complications  arise  and  provisions  seem 
technical,  it  is  frequently  because  through 
ignorance  or  carelessness  the  plain  lan- 
guage of  the  Book  has  been  disregarded. 


"ACTUAL    PROCESS." 

The  first  step,  after  a  person  has  been 
accused  and  cited^  and  has  answered  the 
citation,  in  an  ecclesiastical  case,  is  to  de- 
termine legal  questions,  viz.:  Whether  the 
things  charged  are  really  an  offense,  and 
whether  the  specifications  sustain  the 
charges  and  are  otherwise  in  order,  as  well 
as  the  jurisdiction  and  proper  organization 
of  the  judicatory.  (Section  22.)  After  this 
come  questions  of  fact,  viz.:  whether  the 
testimony  sustains  the  various  specifica- 
tions. 

Tn  the  first  part  of  this  program  the  ac- 
cused "may  file  objections  to  the  regularity 
of  the  organization,  or  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  judicatory,  or  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications,  in  form  or  in 
legal  effect,  or  any  other  substantial  ob- 
jection affecting  the  order  or  regularity  of 
the  proceedings."  If  the  judicatory  lacks 
a  quorum  or  has  not  been  constituted  for 
judicial  business,  or  is  chargeable  with  any 
irregularity,  or  has  no  right  to  put  the  ac- 
cused on  trial,  as  in  the  case  of  a  session 
(33) 


34  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

trying  a  minister,  or  of  a  Presbytery  trying 
a  member  of  another  Presbytery,  or  if  the 
thing  charged  is  trivial  and  not  wrong,  the 
trial  may  at  once  be  arrested. 

There  have  been  cases  in  which  the 
charges,  even  if  sustained,  would  not  justify 
a  censure  or  even  an  admonition,  and 
which  were  properly  dismissed  as  "insuffi- 
cient in  legal  effect."  There  have  been 
others  in  which  the  specifications  did  not 
sustain  the  charges,  and  which  also  were 
properly  dismissed. 

The  framers  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
were  eminently  wise  in  thus  providing  that 
uncalled  for  trials  may  be  stopped  before 
any  testimony  is  presented,  and  before  the 
accused  is  even  called  to  plead  "guilty  or  not 
guilty."  Why  waste  time  in  attempting  to 
prove  that  the  accused  has  said  or  done  a 
thing  which  is  not  an  offense  or  a  matter 
for  which  he  can  be  reproved?  At  the 
same  time,  the  interests  of  the  Church  are 
guarded  by  provisions  that  where  a  case 
is  wrongfully  dismissed  it  may  be  taken 
by  appeal  or  complaint  to  a  higher  court, 


'Actual  Process."  35 


or  may  come  up  of  itself  when  the  higher 
court  passes  upon  the  record. 

Appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  has  been 
taken  in  the  McGiffert  case  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  dismissed  by  Presbytery  before 
the  testimony  was  heard,  and  not  on  any 
ground  specified  by  the  Boole  of  Discipline 
as  a  proper  ground  of  dismissal,  or  because 
the  Presbytery  regarded  Dr.  McGiffert's 
doctrines  as  sound,  but  because  the  Pres- 
bytery thought  that  a  trial  would  work  in- 
jury to  the  Church. 

The  second  part  in  the  program  of  judi- 
cial process  is  the  effort  to  determine 
whether  the  testimony  sustains  the  specifi- 
cations and  charges.  In  most  cases  this  is 
the  important  part  of  the  proceedings. 
Questions  of  law  are  usually  simple  and 
easily  determined,  popular  opinion  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  The  real  diffi- 
culty is  in  determining  the  competency  and 
credibility  of  witnesses,  and  the  bearing 
of  their  testimony,  and  the  force  of  utter- 
ances cited  as  heretical.  An  illustration 
of  this  may  be  noted  in  the  fact  that  since 
the  adoption  of  the  chapter  on  judicial  com- 


36  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

missions,  which  makes  it  necessary  to 
formulate  points  of  law  and  to  present 
them,  apart  from  all  evidence,  to  the  ap- 
pointing judicatory,  there  has  not  been  a 
single  point  of  law  touching  which  the 
Assembly  has  differed  from  its  commissions 
or  touching  which  there  has  been  any  sharp 
discussion.  Parties  in  interest  have  some- 
times argued  that  points  presented  by  com- 
missions were  not  the  points  really  in- 
volved in  their  cases;  but  this  is  a  matter 
of  evidence. 

Chapter  VIII.  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
prescribes  rules  of  evidence  which  are  to 
be  strictly  observed.  Most  of  these  are 
rules  recognized  in  all  courts,  as  the  ex- 
pression of  common-sense  principles.  Nev- 
ertheless they  are  frequently  ignored.  "De- 
clining to  receive  important  testimony"  is 
sometimes  a  ground  of  appeal.  Cases  have 
reached  the  Assembly  and  been  reversed 
because  men  were  condemned  on  the  tes- 
timony of  a  single  witness.  Others  have 
been  reversed  because  witnesses  were  not 
put  under  oath,  as  the  Book  directs,  and 
others  for  failure  to  observe  other  equally 


''Act It'll  Process. 


plain  rules.  We  can  not  here  go  over  all 
these  rules,  nor  is  it  necessary.  Those  who 
are  called  to  act  in  church  courts  are,  or 
should  be,  familiar  with  the  Standards  of 
the  Church,  and  should,  when  performing 
judicial  functions,  adhere  closely  to  the 
rules  of  procedure,  and  especially  to  those 
in  the  chapter  on  evidence  [A  r.eat  copy 
of  the  Form  of  Government,  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline and  Directory  for  Worship  is  pub- 
lished by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Pub- 
lication at  lifty  cents.  A  larger  volume, 
containing  these  and  also  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms,  may  be  had  for 
sixty-five  cents.  The  Depository  of  the 
Board,  420  Elm  Street,  Cincinnati,  or  any 
other  depository,  or  the  Board  itself  at 
Philadelphia,  will  send  these  books,  post- 
paid, at  these  prices.] 

After  the  testimony  in  a  case  is  all  in, 
and  after  the  parties  have  been  heard,  for 
such  time  as  the  judicatory  may  deem  rea- 
sonable, the  judicatory  shall  go  into  pri- 
vate session  and  shall  deliberate,  and  after- 
wards vote  "on  each  specification  and  on 
each  charge  separately,  and  judgment  shall 


38  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 


be  entered  accordingly"  (Section  23).  A 
full  record  shall  be  kept  of  all  proceed- 
ings Section  24.)  This  is  especially  im- 
portant, in  view  of  the  provisions  for  ap- 
peal, complaint  and  review  and  control, 
which  will  furnish  the  subject  of  another 
chapter. 


THE   HIGHER   COURTS. 

That  which  distinguishes  Presbyterian 
discipline  from  other  systems  is  its  suc- 
cession of  courts.  The  Church  is  one.  A 
number  of  congregations  make  up  a  Pres- 
bytery; a  number  of  Presbyteries,  a  Synod; 
and  all  the  Synods  a  General  Assembly.  The 
session  chosen  by  the  congregation  admin- 
isters its  affairs,  not  independently,  but  as 
part  of  Presbytery,  Synod  and  Assembly. 
The  Form  of  Government  defines  the  duties, 
rights  and  relations  of  these  various  bodies. 
The  Book  of  Discipline  gives  specific  direc- 
tions as  to  the  conduct  of  judicial  business. 

The  session  is  the  court  of  primary  juris- 
diction in  cases  involving  members  and 
elders,  but  its  decisions  are  not  necessarily 
final;  being  subject  to  review  by  the  higher 
bodies.  So  the  decisions  of  the  Presbytery, 
which  has  primary  jurisdiction  over  min- 
isters, are  subject  to  review  by  Synod  and 
the  Assembly. 

There  are  three  ways  in  which  the  de- 
cisions of  a  lower  judicatory  may  come  be- 
fore a  higher,  viz.:  by  Review  and  Control, 
(39) 


40  Ecclesidstical  Discipline. 


by  Complaint,  and  by  Appeal.  There  is  also 
a  provision  for  Reference  (Sections  77-82), 
by  which  cases  "not  yet  decided"  may  be 
transferred  to  the  next  higher  judicatory. 
Under  "Review  and  Control"  (Sections 
71-76)  any  action  of  a  judicatory  may  be 
passed  upon  by  the  next  superior  judica- 
tory. This  may  be  at  the  annual  examina- 
tion of  Records,  or  at  any  time  when  the 
superior  judicatory,  being  advised  of  irreg- 
ular or  unconstitutional  action,  calls  for 
the  records  and  enters  upon  investigation. 
In  case  irregularities  are  discovered  excep- 
tion may  be  taken  and  censure  imposed. 
The  importance  of  Review  and  Control 
in  our  system  is  not  always  fully  appre- 
ciated. Some  who  examine  records  see  only 
such  tochnical  irregularities  as  the  failure 
to  open  or  close  with  prayer  or  to  record 
the  names  of  absentees.  These  ought  they 
to  note,  and  not  leave  more  important 
things  unnoticed.  Sections  75  and  76  make 
it  a  duty  to  note  unconstitutional  proceed- 
ings, and  particularly  any  "neglect  whereby 
heretical  opinions  or  corrupt  practices  may 
be  allowed  to  gain  ground,  or  gross  offen- 


The   HiyJicr   Courts.  41 


ders  suffered  to  escape."  No  judicial  deci- 
sion may  be  reversed  under  Review  and 
Control,  but  the  process  contemplated  in 
these  two  sections  may  involve  the  initia- 
tion of  a  judicial  case,  in  which  the  lower 
judicatory  is  respondent,  or  in  which  the 
examining  judicatory  takes  jurisdiction  in 
cases  which  the  lower  judicatory  has  neg- 
lected. These  sections  are  in  harmony  with 
the  doctrine  of  Section  18,  that  "higher  ju- 
dicatories may  institute  process  in  cases  in 
v/hich  the  lower  have  been  directed  to  do 
so,  and  have  refused  or  neglected"  to  do  so. 
Appeal  and  Complaint  are  distinct  pro- 
cesses, though  often  confused.  An  appeal 
can  be  taken  only  by  one  of  the  original 
parties  to  a  case,  viz.:  by  the  accused  or 
accuser.  A  complaint  may  be  taken  by  any 
one  subject  and  submitting  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  judicatory  complained  of.  An 
appeal  can  ho.  taken  only  from  "the  final 
judgment"  in  a  judicial  case;  a  complaint 
may  be  taken  respecting  any  decision  or 
delinquency  of  an  inferior  judicatory.  An 
appeal  takes  a  judicial  case  already  tried 
in  an  inferior  judicatory  before  a  higher 


42  Ecclesiastical   Discipliiir. 

judicatory;  a  complaint  may  initiate  a  new 
case  in  which  the  complainant  is  one  party 
and  the  judicatory  complained  of  the  other. 
An  appeal  may  be  taken  to  any  superior 
judicatory,  but  a  complaint  only  to  the  next 
higher  judicatory.  An  appeal  always  con- 
templates the  reversal  of  the  decision  of  a 
judicial  case;  a  complaint  may  contemplate 
this  or  only  the  correction  of  some  trifling 
irregularity  in  the  trial  of  a  case,  or  even 
some  non-judicial  decision.  In  the  latter 
case,  if  signed  by  one-third  of  the  mem- 
bers recorded  as  present,  it  stays  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decision  complained  of. 

Appeal  and  Complaint  are  alike  in  that 
both  require  notice,  with  reasons,  to  be 
given  to  the  clerk  or  moderator  of  the  judi- 
catory within  ten  days,  and  both  must  be 
filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  superior  judica- 
tory before  the  close  of  the  second  day  of 
its  session,  together  with  the  papers  in  the 
case. 

Appeals  and  complaints  growing  out  of 
judicial  proceedings  are  also  alike  in  that 
they  involve  the  same  proceedings  in  the 
appellate  judicatory.     (Sections  87  and  99.) 


The  Higher  Courts.  43 


In  complaints  in  cases  non-judicial  the  pro- 
ceedings are  those  provided  for  in  cases  of 
"original  process"  (Section  87),  The  ob- 
ject of  an  appeal  is  always  the  reversal  of 
a  "final  judgment"  in  a  judicial  case.  The 
reversal  of  a  condemnation  is  acquittal. 
The  reversal  of  an  acquittal  or  of  a  dis- 
missal of  a  case  (which  in  effect  is  an  ac- 
quittal)  is  condemnation. 

The  usual  grounds  of  appeal  are,  irregular- 
ity in  proceedings;  refusal  to  receive  proper 
testimony;  receiving  improper  testimony 
or  hastening  to  a  decision  before  important 
testimony  is  heard;  manifestation  of  preju- 
dice, and  mistake  and  injustice  in  the  de- 
cision. These  grounds,  variously  stated, 
underlie  almost  every  appeal.  They  were 
the  grounds  in  the  Briggs  and  Smith  cases, 
and  are  the  grounds  in  the  McGiffert  case. 
The  regularity  with  which  they  appear  in 
appeal  cases  suggests  the  necessity  of  watch- 
fulness in  these  directions  on  the  part  of 
judicatories  and  of  all  interested  in  judicial 
ceases. 


JUDICIAL    COMMISSIONS. 

An  overture,  proposing  a  new  chapter  to 
take  the  place  of  Chapter  XIII.  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  on  "Judicial  Commissions," 
was  sent  down  by  the  last  Assembly  and  is 
now  before  the  Presbyteries. 

The  present  chapter  on  judicial  commis- 
sions is  defective  in  some  respects,  but  the 
defects  are  not  serious  and  can  be  cor- 
rected by  amendments  which  will  not  dis- 
turb its  general  character. 

The  difficulties  experienced  by  commis- 
sions in  dealing  with  cases  which  have 
reached  the  Assembly  have  been: 

1.  The  lack  of  full  records,  resulting  from 
the  absence  of  any  direction  in  regard  to 
the  keeping  and  care  of  records  in  Chapter 
XIII. 

2.  The  various  interpretations  of  Section 
119,  particularly  of  the  last  clause. 

3.  Uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  ten 
days  allowed  for  appeal  and  complaint 
begin  with  the  decision  of  the  commission 
or  with  its  report  to  the  appointing  judi- 
catory. 

(44) 


Judicial  Commissions.  45 


4.  The  double  provision  in  regard  to  a 
quorum. 

The  proposed  overture  attempts  too  much, 
though  some  of  its  provisions  are  wise;  and 
the  same  may  be  said  of  an  overture  having 
the  same  purpose  prepared  by  Rev.  Dr.  Bon- 
ner, of  Florida,  N.  Y.  The  following  para- 
graphs taken  from  these  overtures  might  be 
inserted  in  the  present  chapter,  taking  the 
place  of  the  last  clause  in  Section  119: 

Such  commissions  shall  try  all  cases  re- 
ferred to  them  by  the  rules  and  processes 
which  govern  the  appointing  judicatories  in 
iike  cases, 

A  commission  shall  keep  a  full  and  cor 
rect  minute  of  its  proceedings,  which,  to- 
gether with  its  findings,   shall  be  entered 
upon  the  records  of  the  appointing  judica- 
tory. 

A  judicatory  on  reception  of  the  report  of 
a  commission  appointed  by  it  shall  at  once 
place  the  same  upon  its  minutes,  and  pro- 
ceed to  execute  the  findings  of  its  Com- 
mission, subject  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline  respecting  dissents  and 
protests,  complaints  and  appeals,  review 
and  control. 

The  insertion  of  these  or  similar  para- 
graphs in  the  present  chapter  and  the  omis- 


46  Ecclesiastical  Discipltne. 

sion  of  the  provision  that  the  quorum  of  a 
commission  shall  "in  other  respects"  be  like 
that  of  the  appointing  judicatory,  would 
relieve  the  real  difficulties  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made  in  the  discussion  of  the 
matter. 

The  last  clause  of  Section  119  in  the  pres- 
ent chapter  is  certainly  confusing.  The  en- 
tire section  is  as  follows: 

All  judicial  cases  may  be  submitted  to 
such  commissions,  and  their  decisions  shall 
be  subject  to  reversal  only  by  the  superior 
judicatories;  except  in  matters  of  law, 
which  shall  be  referred  to  the  appointing 
judicatory  for  adjudication;  and  also  all 
matters  of  constitution  and  doctrine  may 
be  reviewed  in  the  appointing  body  and  by 
the  superior  judicatory  or  judicatories. 

The  intent  of  the  last  clause  of  this  sec- 
tion was  to  put  the  decisions  of  commis- 
sions on  the  same  plane  with  the  decisions 
of  the  judicatories  themselves,  which  are 
subject  not  only  to  appeal  or  complaint,  but 
to  review  and  control.  The  language,  how- 
ever, was  not  well  chosen.  Persons  called 
to  sit  on  commissions  are  often  confused 
as  to  the  differences  between  a  question  of 


Judicial   Commissions.  47 

law,  which  must  be  referred  to  the  appoint- 
ing judicatory,  and  a  question  of  constitu- 
tion or  doctrine,  which  may  be  reviewed 
either  by  it  or  by  the  superior  judicatories. 
In  reality  no  difference  was  intended.  Ques- 
tions of  constitution  and  doctrine  are  ques- 
tions of  law.  The  language  comes  down 
from  the  old  law  of  commissions,  which 
made  no  provision  for  them  in  Presbyteries, 
but  only  in  Synods  and  Assembly.  Some 
acute  ecclesiastical  lawyers  have  held  that 
its  effect  was  to  make  the  decisions  of  com- 
m.issions  of  Presbyteries  final,  except  in 
matters  of  constitution  and  doctrines,  as 
are  the  decisions  of  Synods  (Form  of  Gov- 
ernment, XL,  4),  and  their  view  finds  some 
support  in  the  history  of  the  language,  and 
in  the  fact  that  it  was  perpetuated  after  the 
right  to  appoint  commissions  of  Presby- 
teries was  given.  It  would  certainly  be 
wise  to  eliminate  this  language  from  the 
section  and  to  substitute  something  like 
the  provisions  given  above. 

A  good  deal  has  been  written  as  to  the 
difficulty  of  referring  points  of  law  to  the 


48  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 


appointing  judicatory,  but  this  diflaculty  has 
not  proved  serious  in  any  actual  case.  It 
is  assumed  by  those  who  urge  this  diffi- 
culty that  a  commission  must  first  formu- 
late its  points  of  law  and  then  wait  the 
action  of  the  appointing  judicatory  before 
proceeding  with  the  trial,  but  this  is  not 
the  process,  and  it  was  not  so  intended. 
The  commission  settles  questions  of  evi- 
dence and  formulates  the  points  of  law 
for  presentation  to  the  judicatory.  It  does 
not  present  these  in  advance,  or  from  time 
to  time,  and  suspend  its  sittings  until  the 
judicatory  passes  upon  each  point,  but 
groups  them  all  together,  with  its  decision 
after  this  is  reached.  In  nine  cases  out  of 
ten  there  is  no  perplexity  as  to  the  law. 
Sometimes  there  is  dispute  as  to  the  appli- 
cation of  particular  points  of  law,  but  this 
is  always  a  matter  of  evidence,  which  the 
commission  itself  determines.  Of  late  years 
the  Assembly  has  steadfastly  refused  'to 
allow  any  discussion  of  the  applicability  of 
points  of  law  to  be  discussed,  and  has  sim- 
ply decided  the  naked  points  as  presented 


Jiidicidl    Coiiiiitissions.  49 


by  commissions.  It  is  of  course  possible 
ihat  a  commission  coming  to  its  judicatory 
with  its  decision  of  a  case  and  with  its 
points  of  law  formulated  for  presentation 
before  the  decision  is  presented  might  have 
its  judgment  on  these  points  reversed,  and 
so  be  obliged  to  modify  its  decision;  but 
ihis  is  not  probable.  Indeed,  we  do  not 
think  it  has  occurred  in  a  single  case  in  the 
Assembly  since  Chapter  XIII.  was  adopted. 
If  it  should  occur  in  a  Presbytery,  it  would 
only  show  the  importance  of  the  provision 
for  the  reference  of  such  points  to  the  ap- 
pointing judicatory.  To  provide  for  such- 
reference  only  in  the  Assembly,  as  has  been 
urged  by  some,  and  not  in  Synods  and 
Presbyteries,  would  be  to  encourage  appeals 
and  complaints.  It  is  a  fact  that,  while 
most  cases  turn  on  questions  of  evidence, 
appeals  are  usually  taken  on  points  of  law 
or  technicalities  which  are  magnified  into 
points  of  law.  Many  a  man  is  satisfied 
when  his  Presbytery  settles  the  law  against 
him,  who  would  not  be  satisfied  by  the  de- 


50  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 


cision  of  a  commission  of  Presbytery  or 
even  of  Synod. 

Much  has  been  said  as  to  what  should 
ccnstitute  a  quorum  of  a  commission.  A 
comparison  of  the  Form  of  Government 
with  the  present  Chapter  XIII.  of  the  Dis- 
cipline will  show  that  a  quorum  of  a  com- 
mission must  now  be  three-fourths  of  the 
members,  making  it  as  large  or  larger  in 
numbers  than  the  quorum  of  the  appointing 
judicatory,  and  "in  other  respects"  the 
same.  Both  the  Assembly's  overture  and 
the  alternate  proposed  by  Dr.  Bonner  re- 
tain the  three-fourths'  rule,  and  have  a  pro- 
vision that  the  quorum  shall  not  be  less 
than  that  of  the  appointing  judicatory. 

The  present  language  is  unfortunate;  but 
the  proposed  change  is  equally  so.  The 
second  provision  either  means  nothing  or 
it  reaffirms  a  condition  which  is  impossible, 
and  which  commissions  have  ignored,  and 
which,  in  the  event  of  any  revision,  should 
be  removed. 

If  the  intention  of  this  second  provision 
is  that  the  quorum  shall  be  equal  in  num- 
bers to  a  quorum  of  the  judicatory,  it  is 


Judicial   Commissions. 


unnecessary  and  confusing.  Three-fourths 
of  the  members  will  always  be  as  many  as 
a  quorum  of  the  judicatory.  If  the  inten- 
tion is  that  the  quorum  shall  be  similarly 
composed,  it  makes  a  quorum  impossible 
in  any  commission  made  up  of  ministers 
and  elders  in  the  usual  proportion.  Sup- 
pose, for  illustration,  that  any  Synod  ap- 
points a  comm.ission  of  twelve,  the  number 
given  in  Chapter  XIII.  and  also  in  the  over- 
ture, of  whom  six,  as  in  the  established 
rule,  are  ministers  and  six  elders.  A 
quorum  is  nine,  which  is  more  than  the 
number  of  ministers  who,  "with  as  many 
elders  as  may  be  present,"  are  required  for 
a  quorum  of  the  Synod;  but  aji  there  are 
only  six  ministers  on  the  commission,  there 
can  be  no  quorum.  A  similar  difficulty  is 
possible,  though  not  inevitable,  in  commis- 
sions of  the  Assembly  and  Presbyteries. 
The  only  escape  from  the  dilemma  would 
be  in  the  appointment  of  larger  commis- 
sions, which  would  be  impossible  in  some 
Presbyteries,  or  in  the  appointment  of 
commissions  composed  entirely  of  minis- 
ters, which  would  be  unwise. 


52  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

The  provision  in  regard  to  a  quorum 
is  a  fatal  defect  in  the  proposed  overture. 
If  adopted,  it  would  be  a  dead  letter,  as  the 
present  provision  is,  or  would  render  the  en- 
tire chapter  inoperative.  It  would  be  better 
to  strike  from  the  present  chapter  the 
clause  making  the  quorum  identical  with 
that  of  the  appointing  judicatory,  leav- 
ing it  simply  three-fourths  of  the  whole 
number.  It  is  probable,  and  certainly  to 
be  hoped,  that  the  overture  will  not  be 
adopted,  and  that  the  Assembly  will  send 
down  another  overture  proposing  modifica- 
tions, which,  while  not  affecting  the  general 
character  of  the  chapter,  v/ill  relieve  it  of 
the  difficulties  specified. 

In  preparing  such  an  overture  the  As- 
sembly or  its  committee  will  have  no  little 
assistance.  Besides  the  overtures  referred 
to,  several  more  or  less  complete  chapters 
have  appeared.  The  Presbytery  of  New 
York  proposes  one  which  is  in  some  re- 
spects superior  to  either  of  those  now  be- 
fore the  Church.  It  retains,  however,  the 
urlfortunate  double  provision  for  a  quorum. 
It  also  provides  that  a  commission  of  Pres- 


Judicial   Commissions.  53 


bytery  may  sit  between  meetings  of  the  ju- 
dicatory. Also  that  commissions  of  Synod 
or  Assembly  shall  refer  to  the  appointing 
body  such  points  of  law  or  doctrine  as  have 
been  made  the  subject  of  exception  by 
either  of  the  parties. 


THE   EXCELLENCE    OF   THE    PRESBY- 
TERIAN  SYSTEM. 

The  Book  of  Discipline  is  often  unjustly 
blamed  for  the  mistakes  of  those  who  ad- 
minister it,  and  even  for  those  of  its  critics 
themselves.  It  is  said  that  the  condemna- 
tion of  unsound  doctrine  advertises  and 
gives  it  currency,  and  that  the  bitterness 
generated  during  trials  is  a  grave  injury 
to  the  Church.  Such  advertisement  and 
bitterness,  however,  are  not  necessary  ac- 
companiments or  results  of  judicial  process. 
Indeed,  one  purpose  of  the  Book  is  to  avoid 
these  things,  or  at  least  to  limit  them  as 
far  as  possible. 

It  rarely  happens  that  a  trial,  either  for 
unsoundness  or  immorality,  attracts  gen- 
eral attention  unless  the  offense  alleged  has 
itself  already  aroused  public  interest.  Re- 
cent trials  illustrate  this.  The  Briggs  case 
was  famous  before  it  assumed  judicial 
form.  Dr.  McGiffert's  book  was  discussed 
and  condemned  throughout  the  Church  be- 
fore process  was  initiated.  Ecclesiastical 
action  did  not  give  publicity,  but  was  a 
(54) 


Excellence  of  the  System.  55 


result  of  it.  In  civil  courts  cases  of  great 
importance  arouse  antagonism,  and  often 
bring  criticism  upon  the  judges  and  upon 
the  law,  but  this  is  no  argument  against  the 
law  or  its  enforcement.  It  may  be  an  ar- 
gument against  an  open  court  room  and  the 
publication  of  proceedings,  but  not  against 
the  trial  of  offenders. 

The  experience  of  those  who  would  hold 
the  Church  true  to  its  Standards  is  not 
unlike  that  of  those  who  seek  the  enforce- 
ment of  temperance  legislation.  Whether 
the  law  be  prohibitive  or  only  regulative  or 
restrictive,  there  are  always  some  to  raise 
the  cry  of  personal  liberty  and  to  declaim 
against  the  law  itself.  Good  laws  are  the 
object  of  perpetual  attack.  Sometimes  the 
effort  is  to  revise  them  out  of  existence,  and 
sometimes  to  destroy  them  by  non-enforce- 
ment. The  strategy  of  those  opposed  to 
discipline  includes  these  methods.  The  cru- 
sade against  heresy  trials  would  either  re- 
vise or  ignore  the  law.  In  either  case  it 
would  open  the  Church  to  all  manner  of 
teaching,  taking  from  it  the  power  by  which 


56  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

it  can  protect  itself  even  against  the  gross- 
est infidelity. 

There  is  no  more  reason  for  publicity  or 
for  bitterness  in  the  removal  of  offenses 
under  our  Discipline  than  under  any  other 
system  in  use  among  the  denominations. 
So  long  as  it  must  needs  be  that  offenses 
come,  their  correction  will  involve  a  meas- 
ure of  excitement  and  advertisement,  with 
possible  bitterness.  In  proportion  as  cases 
are  important  and  complicated,  these  re- 
sults will  be  more  apparent. 

The  excitement  and  advertisement  con- 
Eected  with  the  McGiffert  case  are  excep- 
tional and  not  a  result  of  our  system.  As 
already  noted,  they  antedate  any  judicial 
action  in  his  case.  They  were  not  entirely 
spontaneous  or  natural,  but  were,  as  we 
suppose,  designed  to  prevent  such  action. 
The  movement  f©r  a  revision  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  which  began  in  1898  and  has 
not  yet  been  entirely  abandoned,  was  pri- 
marily a  movement  for  the  defense  of  Dr. 
McGiffert  The  cry  of  "no  more  heresy 
trials"  was  a  demand  for  the  toleration 
of  his  doctrines.     The  cry  was  first  raised 


fjxceijencc  of  tJie  System. 


by  his  champions,  but  was  taken  up  by 
some  others  whose  fears  led  them  to  mag- 
nify the  danger  of  adhering  to  the  methods 
prescribed  by  our  Standards. 

Now  that  Dr.  McGiffert  has  withdrawn 
from  the  Church  and  that  the  Presbytery 
has  stricken  his  name  from  the  roll,  little 
remains  of  his  case  except  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  action  of  Presbytery  in  re- 
fusing to  try  it  after  Dr.  McGiffert  had  been 
cited  and  had  responded  to  the  citation. 
Dr.  Birch  intimated  to  the  Presbytery  that 
after  the  legal  principles  involved  in  the 
case  are  settled  by  the  Assembly  he  will 
pursue  the  matter  no  farther.  Pres- 
bytery's action  was  a  practical  asser- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  "no  more  heresy 
trials,"  even  in  cases  which,  like  that  of 
Dr.  McGiffert,  touch  the  vitals  of  our  faith. 
The  issue  is  plain.  Dr.  McGiffert  emphasizes 
iL  in  his  letter.  The  appeal  of  Dr.  Birch 
claims  that  Presbytery  should  have  pro- 
ceeded with  the  trial  according  to  the  Book, 
and  that  it  had  no  right  to  dismiss  the 
case  for  the  reasons  given.    The  Presbytery 


58  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

claims  that,  though  the  teachings  of  Dr. 
McGiffert  are  "erroneously  and  seriously 
out  of  harmony  with  the  facts  of  Scrip- 
ture," a  trial  would  work  injury.  Questions 
may  be  raised  as  to  the  right  of  Presbytery 
tc  dismiss  Dr.  McGiffert  after  his  case  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Assembly,  and  it  is 
possible  that  the  action  may  be  declared 
irregular,  but  its  effect  will  be  to  simplify 
matters  by  eliminating  the  personal  ele- 
ment. Had  Dr.  McGiffert  not  withdrawn, 
the  Assembly,  after  sustaining  the  appeal 
of  Dr.  Birch,  would  be  obliged  to  take  up 
and  try  the  case  upon  the  original  charges, 
or  to  direct  the  Presbytery  to  do  so.  As 
it  is,  the  Assembly  can  sustain  the  appeal, 
and  then  say  that  "inasmuch  as  Dr.  McGif- 
fert has  withdrawn  and  his  name  been 
stricken  from  the  roll,  no  further  action  is 
necessary."  This  will  vindicate  the  law 
and  give  peace.  It  will  assert  the  prin- 
ciple that  where  ministers  diligently  propa- 
gate dangerous  error  and  will  not  heed 
admonition  or  withdraw,  judicial  process 
is  a  duty,  and  it  will  illustrate  that  char- 


Excellence  of  the  System.  59 

ity  and  disposition  to  peace  which  our  doc- 
trine and  Discipline  inculcate. 

It  has  not  been  shown  that  any  radical 
change  in  our  system  would  be  an  improve- 
ment, or  that  any  other  system  would  pre- 
vent or  reduce  the  evils  enumerated.  The 
question  whether  the  processes  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline  can  in  any  way  be  shortened 
and  simplified  is  worthy  of  consideration. 
This  question  will  be  brought  before  the 
Assembly  by  an  overture  from  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  Brunswick. 

The  suggestion  which  has  been  urged  by 
newspaper  writers  that  offenders  be  referred 
to  judicious  committees  or  commissions  hav- 
ing povrer  to  investigate  privately  and  take 
final  action,  offers  nothing  desirable  which 
can  not  be  had  under  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, while  it  does  take  away  safeguards 
which  are  of  great  value.  It  is  now  entirely 
possible  and  easy,  under  Chapter  XIII.,  to 
refer  any  case  to  a  commission,  as  judicious 
ar?  can  be  made  up  in  the  judicatory.  It  is 
also  possible  for  such  a  commission  or  for 
any  judicatory  to  sit  with  closed  doors, 
excluding   outsiders,   and   maintaining   se- 


60  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

crecy  as  thoroughly  as  could  be  done  by 
any  committee.  Progress  in  methods  of  ad- 
ministering law,  both  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical, has  heretofore  been  found  to  lie  in  the 
direction  of  open  courts,  with  full,  fair 
trials.  Star  chamber  proceedings  and  secret 
trials  under  the  Inquisition  were  the  in- 
struments of  oppression.  Our  judicatories 
have,  as  they  should  have,  the  right  to  sit 
in  private.  Possibly  this  right  should  be 
exercised  more  frequently  than  it  is,  but 
any  modification  of  the  Book  making  all 
judicial  proceedings  secret  would  be  a  blun- 
der. So  would  the  removal  of  the  safe- 
guards which  are  part  of  our  present  sys- 
tem. The  evils  resulting  from  public  trials 
as  now  conducted  are  trifling  compared 
with  those  which  would  result  from  trials 
behind  closed  doors  and  without  these 
safeguards. 

The  Book  of  Discipline,  good  as  it  is,  may 
possibly  be  improved  by  some  amendments, 
as,  for  instance,  the  changes  in  its  chap- 
ter on  Judicial  Commissions,  which  we  have 
discussed,  or  by  other  changes  calculated  to 
remove  friction  and  more  promptly  secure 


Excellence  of  the  System.  61 

the  ends  for  which  it  is  intended;  but  any 
general  revision,  designed  to  take  from  the 
Church  its  power  to  protect  itself,  or  to 
take  from  any  minister  or  member  his  right 
to  a  full  and  fair  trial,  with  appeal  if  he 
wishes,  to  the  highest  court,  would  be  a 
step  backward  and  not  forward — a  move- 
ment towards  the  darkness  and  oppression 
of  the  Middle  Ages  and  away  from  the  high 
ground  of  truth,  morality  and  justice,  to 
which  our  standard  has  been  advanced. 

The  Church  is  not  ready  for  such  a  move- 
ment. The  assertion,  credited  to  a  "prom- 
inent New  York  clergyman,"  and  published 
with  approving  comments  in  a  number  of 
daily  papers,  that  "if  the  question  could  be 
put  to  vote  at  once,  the  Church  would  abol- 
ish the  Book  of  Discipline,"  is  simply  an 
opinion,  or  the  expression  of  desire,  with 
no  basis  of  fact. 

However,  what  the  Church  would  do  if 
called  to  vote  "at  once,"  is  less  important 
than  what  it  would  do  after  consideration. 
It  is  one  of  the  excellencies  of  our  Form 
of    Government    that    it    provides    against 


C)2  Ecclesiastical  Discipline. 

basty  revision  of  its  standards.  The  cry  of 
"no  more  heresy  trials"  disturbed  some 
good  people,  and  perhaps  some  are  still  dis- 
turbed, but  the  provision  whereby  changes 
in  the  Book  must  be  overtured  to  Presby- 
teries and  answered  a  year  later,  insures 
full  discussion  and  wise  action. 

It  is  easy  to  start  a  revision  movement. 
A  few  newspaper  articles,  interviews  with 
radical  men  in  different  cities,  vigorous  as- 
sertions that  the  whole  Church  favors  it, 
are  sufficient.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  persuade 
the  Assembly  and  a  majority  or  two-thirds 
of  the  Presbyteries.  Ministers  and  elders 
as  a  rule  are  well  informed,  thoughtful, 
stable  men.  They  know  what  they  believe. 
They  are  not  easily  swept  off  their  feet, 
and  when  they  are,  soon  get  back  to  solid 
ground.  They  understand  and  believe  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  They  know  the  meaning  and 
necessity  of  the  ordination  vow.  They 
know  that  if  the  Church  is  to  accomplish 
its  divine  mission,  it  must  maintain  a 
sound,  conservative  ministry,  and  that  to 


Excellence  of  the  System.  (i3 


this  end  it  must  have  an  effective  method 
of  dealing  with  those  who  are  immoral  or 
unsound.  Such  a  system  they  have  in  the 
Book  of  Discipline.  To  abandon  this  be- 
cause its  operation  sometimes  develops 
friction,  would  be  as  foolish  as  for  sheep  to 
give  up  their  watchdogs  because  barking 
disturbs  the  wolves,  or  for  a  city  to  give 
up  its  courts  and  police  because  lawbreak- 
ers are  obstreperous. 

Our  system  has  stood  the  test  of  many 
ecclesiastical  trials.  It  has  been  violently 
assailed.  Men  who  have  been  judged  by  it 
do  not  like  it.  "No  rogue  e'er  felt  the  halter 
draw  with  good  opinion  of  the  law,"  and  on 
the  same  principle  men  who  are  not  rogues, 
but  who  are  theologically  unsound  and  un- 
fit for  our  ministry,  would  abolish  heresy 
trials.  "Rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good 
works,  but  to  the  evil."  The  crusade 
against  heresy  trials  began  with  men  out 
of  sympathy  with  Presbyterianism.  It  has 
gained  recruits  among  those  who,  without 
much  thought,  overestimate  the  difficulties 
and  underestimate  the  importance  of  dis- 


64  Ecclesiastical   Discipline. 

cipline.  As  the  question  is  discussed  in 
Church  courts,  difficulties  will  disappear 
and  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  maintain 
sound  doctrine  and  the  excellence  of  its 
fiystem  will  be  manifest. 


DATE    DUE 


GAYLORD 


PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 


^^'" 


Pnnceton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M 


